Some Sanity in the Media

Perhaps it's my tendency to check sources other than U.S. corporate media, but I've been encouraged by the coverage of the Britain terror plot as of late. Lots of people, it seems, have the same questions I do. Is this another hyped-up story to cow the public? Did these idiots actually have access to anything other than the diluted peroxide available to the general public?

The 24-hour cable news channels, of course, have been in an orgasmic frenzy of stupidity... but why should this story be any different than their usual inanity? In particular, the unquestioning reporting done on The Penguin and Lieberman's comments regarding Lamont being pro-terrorist is just shameful.

Who benefits from security hysteria?: theage.com.au

"Terrorists of various sorts have been in business for about 40 years, and the present crop of Islamist terrorists are especially dangerous since they are willing to kill themselves along with their victims. But in the United States more people die on the roads every single month than Islamist terrorists have killed since the year 2000, and in Britain it's more people every week. Yet neither country has tried to restrict access to cars.

Maybe it's cynical, but there are strong grounds for suspecting that this is all a charade. If they infiltrated these terrorist cells many months ago and have now have arrested most of the members, then why would they institute drastic new security measures on flights at this point? And did they really only realise in the past few days that explosives come in liquid form as well?"